MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2310318633 · doi:10.3765/exabs.v0i0.2384

Truncation in the Spanish left-periphery: fragment answers and recomplementation

2014· article· en· W2310318633 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFragment (logic)Predicate (mathematical logic)ComplementizerMathematicsCombinatoricsLinguisticsComputer scienceHumanitiesDiscrete mathematicsPhilosophyAlgorithmSyntaxProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we discuss the contrast between two classes of predicates in Spanish: those that can embed fragment answers and those that cannot. We show that these predicate classes differ not only in the general the availability of fragment answers but also in the availability of the complementizer <em>que </em>in certain constructions as well as the availability of the phenomenon known as <em>recomplementation</em>,<em> </em>as discussed by Villa-García (2012) and Demonte & Fernández-Soriano (2009). We propose that the syntactic differences between the two classes of predicates arise because these predicates select different types of clausal complements.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it